There’s been a battle that’s taken place recently with Independent turned Republican.. turned whatever.. Justin McNeal in his continuing saga to be placed on the South Dakota ballot.
Back on July 1st, McNeal filed for a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of State, demanding to be placed on the ballot, which you can read below.
Justin McNeal Lawsuit Against SDSOS to go on ballot by Pat Powers on Scribd
Of course, the South Dakota Republican Party took issue with that, since neither trying to run as a Republican, nor trying to run as an independent, did Justin McNeal collect enough valid signatures to do so in either case.
SDGOP MCNEAL Intervenor by Pat Powers on Scribd
The big news coming from this is that I’m told that Justin McNeal got his day in court this morning – and I’m told that once again, he lost.
This would appear to be a trend for Justin.
A couple of interesting items I noted in the lawsuit:
State Representative Scott Odenbach and his wife were signatories for McNeal’s petitions to run as an independent for Congress. I get the feeling he does not care for Congressman Johnson.
You have to wonder who all the SOS staff cheers for in making and not making the ballot, as indicated from this transcript McNeal provided as an exhibit. And wouldn’t it be Justin McNeal’s job to go hire someone for legal advice, versus receiving it from the SOS staff?
“If you did want to take this to court, you could potentially win on the fact that signers did do their job on signing the petition.”
Obviously, with McNeal’s loss in court this morning, the court disagreed.
You can always count on Odenbach to undermine the GOP and our Republican candidates.
So…. The head of elections for SOS, a woman Monae speaks very highly of, says “I was cheering for you to be able to make it [on the ballot]?” That’s not biased at all! Then she suggests that he file a lawsuit against the SOS, which would have to be defended at taxpayer money? It’ll be interesting to see if Monae keeps her on staff after this.
Rachel is a positive person. She most likely cheers on everyon who turns in petitions.
I agree. Having known Rachel through her work in Pierre she is extremely professional and dedicated to this state, not any one candidate. I read the transcript as meaning she wants people who sincerely are trying to run legitimately to be successful in their process. Giving them all options and not deliberately doing anything to restrict people’s right to petition, run, or otherwise.
Justin did what Life Defense Fund should have done and that’s sue the SOS’s office over petitions dealing with the abortion amendment as requested by the judge in that case.
Time is running out for them if they want to try to keep that off the ballot this November.
Hilarious
he can’t even get enough signatures to run; how would he possibly get over 250,000 votes?
You’re weird.
He put himself in a bad position by not getting more signatures but he got screwed. The law clearly says that he should not be disallowed from the ballot due to just a technicality. A notary issue is just a technicality. I would’ve voted for Dusty but SD deserved the option.
Hence the vast number of signatures. Ooooooo-k, fella.
Odenbach is completely unfit to lead the Republican caucus if he’s supporting people AGAINST the republicans. Any true conservative in the House will deem him unfit for leadership.
I’d sign it again.
After 30 years carrying water for the “GOP” I know a conservative when I see one, and Dusty is not it. His instincts are wrong. As I replied in the FB thread you link to:
Check the record: Dusty can’t spin his way out of the truth that in 2019 he joined 12 other “Republicans” and every Democrat to stop Trump’s border emergency declaration at a time when the GOP controlled the government & we could have gotten immigration under control. The later votes he cites for “funding” were classic D.C. cover actions with a guaranteed Biden veto. As shown by the ongoing crisis and invasion, Trump‘s actions were prescient, necessary and lawful under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, despite the opposition from Dems and corporatist RINOS. Dusty’s 2019 vote was a sellout to the “cheap labor workforce shortage” Chamber of Commerce lobby that supports his campaigns and a sellout of the American people who now suffer from the effects of this un-addressed true national emergency.
A member of the legislature doesnt allow the executive to declare national emergencies for things that don’t fit the definition. What about respecting the separation of powers says “not conservative” to you? Oh wait, I remember: everyone who disagrees with you is a RINO. ONLY YOU are a true republican.
Attacking Republicans again? Scott has a funny definition of carrying water for the elephant.
What have you ever done for the party? Running for yourself doesn’t count.
Why do we need funding for a wall that your candidate claimed would be paid for by Mexico? I guess those were just lies for the lemmings to eat up.
These “anonymous” comments are pretty rich. This blog specializes in attacking Republican conservatives. You all only get offended when one of us fights back.
You’ve made a career of attacking others, get real. Do you think we have the memory of a gnat or something? You are just upset that people are calling you out. Toughen up, Scott.
Dusty agreed fully with Trump’s plan, he just didn’t accept the way it was being done and the principle it would set for the abuse of executive powers by Democrats in the future– a principle which we saw abused repeatedly the moment Trump vacated office. Dusty learned this lesson, you should too: “However low Republicans set the bar, Democrats will always go two rungs lower.”
How many modern Republicans can stand on their principles in the face of Trump, the leader of the party? That takes guts to put your political career on the line in favor of what you believe. I’m not putting all 12 of those Republicans in the same basket as Dusty, some of them have repeated this pattern of Trump opposition I give you that, but you’re putting Trump-worship above free-thinking principles when you speak of Dusty’s decision in this singular matter. The principle in question is: Does the ends justify the means? Scott Odenbach says yes, even if that puts ultimate power in the hands of the same people he claims are stealing our elections. (and they are)
Do you support the abuse of executive powers by Democrats, Scott?
Scott supports Scott and those who he believes will support Scott. His allegiance is to Scott and whatever is politically or personally expedient. I’m waiting for his inevitable post of some out of context, ancient, founding father quote to show how deep his patriotic roots run. Hard to convince people you are morally superior when you have none.
And mostly Scott isn’t very smart as he can’t grasp complex issues or approach them with anything but a very big hammer which he is willing to use against anyone who doesn’t worship at his feet by agreeing with him on ever issue, on his approach, and who gets credit.
He has the demeanor of a tyrant, one who you know will ultimately come after you if you ever disagree with him.
Not sure I wouldn’t call Scott smart. That’s probably the wrong word though. Manipulative, cunning or maybe devious would be better. He was smart enough to use his Liberty Tree PAC to buy a bunch of idiotic lapdogs.